UK news: new minister for disabled against benefits and human rights for chronically ill

[Snow Leopard]

This is why you need a preferential voting system like in Australia. (even then it only works when politicians don't lie to your face the day before the election, but its a start).

 

[Marco]

I don't personally consider this government to have democratic legitimacy,

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Under the present system the result is as legitimate as it gets and there are no grounds for complaining if you didn't get the result you wanted.

Perhaps we would be better directing our energies to something constructive like supporting research that might just get some of out of the situation were we need to rely on benefits and also putting our weight behind Charles Shepherd and co who are acting on our behalf to try to fix a flawed system with regards to those with fluctuating conditions.

Certainly more constructive than spraying obscenities on a war memorial on VE day or other such gesture politics.

 

[user9876]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Under the present system the result is as legitimate as it gets and there are no grounds for complaining if you didn't get the result you wanted.

Perhaps we would be better directing our energies to something constructive like supporting research that might just get some of out of the situation were we need to rely on benefits and also putting our weight behind Charles Shepherd and co who are acting on our behalf to try to fix a flawed system with regards to those with fluctuating conditions.

Certainly more constructive than spraying obscenities on a war memorial on VE day or other such gesture politics.

I think there is a certain, and growing, factor that governments take account of those who make a fuss and groups who they feel will vote, So I think it is important that people try to be visible to MPs etc. For example, writing about ESA, PIP or writing about lack of funding for ME research.

 

[Snow Leopard]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Under the present system the result is as legitimate as it gets and there are no grounds for complaining if you didn't get the result you wanted.

A lot of people seem believe a misconception thing that 'democracy' is about voting, so that you can judge whether a country is 'democratic' or not based on whether they have elections or not.

It is far more of a grey area than that. Democracy is about involvement of the citizens and meeting their needs. Voting every three or four years is a very low level of involvement. It is in principle possible to have a government with an autocratic leader that is more democratic than one which has elections, if that autocratic leader engages and involves the citizens more directly in decision making.

Lastly if you have a first-past-the-post voting system, then it is possible (and usually the case) where the elected leaders are not those which the majority of the population would have chosen directly. This questions the legitimacy of such a system.

 

[Marco]

Lastly if you have a first-past-the-post voting system, then it is possible (and usually the case) where the elected leaders are not those which the majority of the population would have chosen directly. This questions the legitimacy of such a system.

And if you elect using systems like PR you end up electing a disparate range of the least disliked parties with the collective life expectancy and decision making ability of any number of Italian governments. Horses for courses.

 

[Snow Leopard]

And if you elect using systems like PR you end up electing a disparate range of the least disliked parties with the collective life expectancy and decision making ability of any number of Italian governments. Horses for courses.

How about both? A PR senate, combined with a lower house of local representatives, combined with a preferential voting system. Such a thing already exists in at least one country.

 

[Marco]

How about both? A PR senate, combined with a lower house of local representatives, combined with a preferential voting system. Such a thing already exists in at least one country.

Why not? There are any number of alternatives but the public were given a referendum on voting reform not so long ago and rejected it which suggests there's no great appetite for change.

 

[jimells]

Let me see if I understand this correctly...

In Uncle Sam land we have an authoritarian executive elected by a little-understood and slightly mysterious "Electoral College". The executive branch routinely ignores the legislative and judicial branches with impunity (as well as any and all international treaties and laws that are inconvenient).

In Canada and UK we see a parliamentary system both using "first past the post" where the legislative and executive are the same people.

In Australia folks use some sort of proportional system to select a parliament.

And yet in each of these countries the policies are essentially the same: domination of native peoples, smashing of foreign societies, impoverishment of their own citizens.

Does anyone seriously believe that re-jiggering the electoral charade will change policies?

 

[MeSci]

Let me see if I understand this correctly...

In Uncle Sam land we have an authoritarian executive elected by a little-understood and slightly mysterious "Electoral College". The executive branch routinely ignores the legislative and judicial branches with impunity (as well as any and all international treaties and laws that are inconvenient).

In Canada and UK we see a parliamentary system both using "first past the post" where the legislative and executive are the same people.

In Australia folks use some sort of proportional system to select a parliament.

And yet in each of these countries the policies are essentially the same: domination of native peoples, smashing of foreign societies, impoverishment of their own citizens.

Does anyone seriously believe that re-jiggering the electoral charade will change policies?

There have been calls/petitions for other changes that might help, e.g. the recall of MPs who break their promises, or behave unacceptably in other ways. In my experience that is an awful lot of them, especially those at the top, which may be why we haven't got that one through yet in the UK.

 

[MeSci]

That's the 38 Degrees one that I mentioned above.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Does anyone seriously believe that re-jiggering the electoral charade will change policies?

Absolutely. If there was a majority in the senate, rather than the balance of power in the hands of those minor parties/independents, then our government would have set our country back decades, with just one year of scary-bad policy.

The reason why things are comparatively better in Australia as they are in the UK or the USA is precisely because we have a slightly better system, because it certainly isn't due to better quality leaders. The USA has far better leaders (they aren't always elected though), yet fails to deliver better outcomes in so many respects. Why?

 

[user9876]

Absolutely. If there was a majority in the senate, rather than the balance of power in the hands of those minor parties/independents, then our government would have set our country back decades, with just one year of scary-bad policy.

The reason why things are comparatively better in Australia as they are in the UK or the USA is precisely because we have a slightly better system, because it certainly isn't due to better quality leaders. The USA has far better leaders (they aren't always elected though), yet fails to deliver better outcomes in so many respects. Why?

I think one of the most interesting things about the Australian system is the compulsory voting. One of my concerns in the UK is that all parties tend to aim policies at the groups they feel will vote which can often skew things.

 

[Marco]

The reason why things are comparatively better in Australia as they are in the UK or the USA is precisely because we have a slightly better system, because it certainly isn't due to better quality leaders. The USA has far better leaders (they aren't always elected though), yet fails to deliver better outcomes in so many respects. Why?

Isn't Oz taking the lead in expelling asylum seekers/economic migrants by stopping them at source rather than the EU's save and think about the consequences later stance? Not saying it's right or wrong but that was an executive decision which doesn't seem to have been counterbalanced by any other branch of government.

 

[Snow Leopard]

I think one of the most interesting things about the Australian system is the compulsory voting. One of my concerns in the UK is that all parties tend to aim policies at the groups they feel will vote which can often skew things.

You don't actually have to vote, you just have to show up, or get a $50 fine or whatever it is these days.

You can draw a First Dog on the Moon cartoon on your ballot, it is your choice.

 

[Snow Leopard]

Isn't Oz taking the lead in expelling asylum seekers/economic migrants by stopping them at source rather than the EU's save and think about the consequences later stance? Not saying it's right or wrong but that was an executive decision which doesn't seem to have been counterbalanced by any other branch of government.

I'm not going to go there at all, not in this thread...

 

[Countrygirl]

UK people - sign this petition to keep the Human Rights Act:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-human-rights

94,000 signatures already (including me).

And me! Yes, please do sign as the situation in the UK is serious I believe.

 

[Wildcat]

.
Keir Starmer, the former UK Director of Public Prosecutions and former Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, demolishes the arguments for getting rid of the Human Rights Act:
.

The Guardian. 13th May 2015

‘The arguments against the Human Rights Act are coming. They will be false’

Keir Starmer

'In the aftermath of the second world war, nations came together to say “never again”. They established the United Nations and agreed a simple set of universal standards of decency for mankind to cling to: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards were intended to protect the individual from the state, to uphold the rights of minorities and to provide support for the vulnerable.

The idea was simple; these standards would first be enshrined in regional treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and then be given legal effect in every country. In the UK this was achieved when Labour enacted the Human Rights Act (HRA) in 1998.

The incoming Tory government now intends to strip our people of these universal rights by repealing the HRA. Michael Gove has been appointed as the new justice secretary to lead the assault. In a week when we celebrate VE Day, the irony should not be lost. British politicians, many of them Tory, participated in the drafting of the ECHR in Whitehall because they believed that they were drafting an instrument to reflect the values that we in this country took for granted and which, they thought, vindicated our military triumph.

No doubt Gove will peddle the myth that the HRA is effectively a villains’ charter. But the evidence is against him
No doubt Gove will peddle the usual myth that the HRA is nothing more than a villains’ charter. But the evidence is against him on that. There has been no fundamental shift in defendants’ rights under the HRA, mainly because legislation passed by the Margaret Thatcher government in 1984 set out clear rights for suspects that have been successfully embedded in our law for many years.

By stark contrast, the HRA has heralded a new approach to the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, including child victims of trafficking, women subject to domestic and sexual violence, those with disabilities and victims of crime. After many years of struggling to be heard, these individuals now have not only a voice, but a right to be protected. The Tory plans to repeal the HRA, together with the restricted access to our courts already brought about by the restriction on judicial review introduced by Gove’s predecessor, Chris Grayling, will silence the vulnerable and leave great swaths of executive action unchecked and unaccountable.

Gove may try another tack, arguing that the Tories are not against human rights at all, but simply want to keep those pesky judges in the European court at bay. But this argument also unravels quickly. The rights in the ECHR are very simple. They include the right to life, liberty and security of person; the right to a fair trial; protection from torture and ill treatment; freedom of thought, conscience, religion, speech and assembly; the right to marry; the right to free elections; the right to fair access to the country’s education system; and, to top things off, the right not to be discriminated against. Which of these rights would you not want? One of the reasons the much-vaunted Tory “British bill of rights” has never seen the light of day is because any proposal that does not match these basic ECHR rights will be torn to shreds.......... '

Continues....Read on......
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...usting?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook
.
.

 

[Sean]

In Australia folks use some sort of proportional system to select a parliament.

We have two houses in the federal parliament, the Representatives (lower house), and the Senate (upper house). The reps is the main house, where the government is formed, bills proposed, and budgets delivered. The senate is the house of review and the states' house, which has the power to modify or block bills and budgets, and even block basic finance supply bills completely (though that has only happened once, and is a very controversial tactic).

The reps is elected with a majoritarian preferential (instant run-off) system, while the senate uses a proportional preferential quota system, that also gives equal numbers of senators to each state independent of its population size (except for Tasmania and the territories, which have much lower numbers of senators).

Note that the proportional system in the senate only applies to each state, not the country as a whole. Senators are elected proportionally within each state, but not necessarily proportionally at the national level.

It is very rare for a government to have control of both houses, and when they do they typically fall prey to their own hubris and either lose the next election or get their wings very seriously clipped.

Of course there are some problematic quirks in our particular system (including individual state systems, which vary), but that is for another day.

Apart from that, our electoral system is a clear as mud. Just like all the others.

 

[Sean]

I feel sick to the bottom of my stomach at what our UK friends are facing from this vile Cameron government now it has been freed from the constraints of coalition government.

 

[Valentijn]

The USA has far better leaders (they aren't always elected though), yet fails to deliver better outcomes in so many respects. Why?

Because it's completely accepted for US politicians to be controlled by the interests of the corporations which have funded them. In fact, it's pretty much required that a politician be funded by (and indebted to) various corporate interests if they are to have a serious shot at winning any election.

Citizens still get to vote, but it is those with a great deal of wealth who decide who the candidates will be. And with the two party system dominating the situation, it's very easy to limit the choices of the populace.